Yes, climate change (aka global warming) is real and largely driven by human activity (pollution).
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.operatorchan.org/t/res/107517.html

Undeniable climate change facts https://youtu.be/SQ7bzR99iJ4

>>111357
Yes and no. The global warming is not there because combined human influence on climate is less than eruption of a major volcano. On the other hand, it is there, because climate is a dynamic system in constant motion, and it changes constantly, making some places warmer and some others hotter.

People still have trouble accurately predicting the weather for more than several days, and they can predict major weather event for a week or two beforehand, with fair reliability.

>>111358
A century ago a lot of people believed that sunspots are responsible for climate change, not to say, for major disasters, wars and droughts. Well, they were proven wrong, to a larger degree because you can't tax sunspots.

>Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Cause it pays well to agree on that. You can promote carbon tax, "alternative energy", all sorts of "green" bullshit. And therefore extract money from economies, budgets, citizens, attract investment, fame and influence in politics, and all that without actually taking responsibility for any consequences. Under the pressure of these money drains, real projects that should fix climate issues and provide more people with more comfortable living space, are forgotten and abandoned (if ever considered possible).

>Undeniable climate change facts
>CNN
Lol nope.

The real application of climate change should be active, if not aggressive, in the area of conquering the nature and exploiting it's available resources. Instead of passively trying to stabilise the situation with "common" knowledge, "neutralize" human presence and footprint on global scale, we need to learn to live with it. We need to understand, that it is our responsibility to watch over yourself in the first place, and not our "planet", which is totally indifferent to whatever we feel ourselves.

Since the consensus on "climate change" that was made possible after end of Cold War (and dissolution of most sensible alternative opinion on global situation), everybody agreed to follow "passive" strategy to prevent situation from changing, and nobody acknowledges that it is actually impossible. Any given action especially performed in the area of reducing "footprint", leads up directly to the opposite effect - because this is how economy works.

But nobody cares as long as money flow and idea works. By the time we really understand how wrong we were about many of the things, this situation will already be too late to fix with passive methods and we may as well have to invest into global warming instead of battling it. Because of rebound effects, because of obsolete policies, corruption and capital accumulation, the market is becoming unable to adjust to any changes in situation, or control itself, and in effect, will become completely useless machine running on it's own into random direction.

 
 
 
 
 
<----- al gore

  Now I'm not going to pretend I'm professional or that I know more then competent people. After all, we might as well live in the best of all possible worlds. Maybe other options beside current "global warming" projects will actually turn out even worse that that, fuelled by human arrogance, stupidity or lack of knowledge.

But when I hear this guy making a slight mistake
slight mistake
SLIGHT MISTAKE[b]
[b]S_L_I_G_H_T M_I_S_T_A_K_E
YOU FUCKING SHIT MOUTHED GASBAG, WHY DON'T YOU
JUST SAY IT LIKE YOU MEAN IT, IF IT IS SO IMPORTANT
of saying "last few hundred years" instead of "last few decades" at 1:50. My blood is suddenly simmering with indescribable rage. I want to slam his face into a nearest hard surface. Not to say about the rest of the demonstration.

It's a well known fact that Global Warming is real. The "experts" saying otherwise are paid shills.

>>111357
Have you tried actually reading some reputable sources (i.e. actual scientists not internet conspiracy theory blogs) instead of asking an imageboard full of cranks, schizos and drooling tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists?

I believe climate change is real, maybe not global warming exactly though, and I think its entirely possible its man made but don't know for certain.

Either way, man made or natural, the whole of humanity should be doing more to prepare for it and to not exacerbate it. Even if its naturally occurring I'm sure pumping tons of crap into the atmosphere and depleting the ozone aren't helping matters.

I'm also sure even if its natural we shouldn't be sitting on our asses like some damn dirty pot smoking hippies who think anything natural is good for you. Even 100 percent organic all natural dead oceans and desert former bread baskets are going to fuck the human race just as bad as if they are the result of everyone driving cars or the chinks building libertarian wet dream factories.

Pic somewhat related, what exit will Frank take? And why can't we beat the Soviets? Is it true the 21st century will be the Soviet century?

>>111378
yeah dude, a retarded magazine cover based on the work of one kooky attention whore scientist that some jews used to try to sell the sophisticated version of people magazine on a slow news week 4 decades ago is effective refutation of the consensus views of an overwhelming majority of contemporary scientists.
that makes perfect sense

>>111380
I didn't say it was refuting or disproving anything, hence why it was somewhat related. What it does is illustrate that maybe, just maybe, one shouldn't accept everything automatically as truth and have a little healthy skepticism. If you believed everything you'd be stocking up on winter coats and snowmobiles for the coming winter apocalypse to happen any day now.

Also illustrates how the Soviets can never be beaten which is in no way something that would prove to be as dead as global cooling in the dawn of 21st century.

Someone should Google '' Ice Ace Temperature Changes''. Someone should also Google ''The Greening Affect''.


That's right, your fucking Subaru is literally spreading fertilizer all over the place and does jack shit to the weather...

>>111382
>one shouldn't accept everything automatically as truth and have a little healthy skepticism
ok, but next time some hollywood slut says that guns should be banned you should consider that uneducated individual loudmouthed retard's opinion to be the intellectual and moral equal of a 2/3 majority of american founding fathers and just flip a coin as to if you continue to support civil rights or not. because you don't know for sure that she isn't smarter than everyone else so just give her a fair chance.

>>111357
real, probably
man made? probably

erryone panic OMG , lol no, Gore and friends were predicting we'd all be dead in 2015.

not using oil is gonna be a bitch, though, whole world is dependent on fossil fuels and just as important - plastics.

  Egypt is threatening war with Ethiopia because the latter is building a dam in the Nile headwaters for drought protection and energy production.

  >>111732
A second background video the guy did to add context.

>>111384
Most underrated post in this thread.

  >>111746
For those who claim high CO2 is beneficial, tie a plastic bag around your head and enjoy.
"Regarding my friend from California, if he thinks [carbon dioxide] doesn't cause any health problems, I invite him to put a plastic bag over his head, tie it tightly around his neck and see what happens next," Grayson said during a House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing on the Energy Department's clean energy budget.

Grayson was responding to comments made by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., who called climate change "a theory" that the Obama administration is using to justify spending and policy decisions that are putting thousands of people out of work.

"I don't accept the fact that CO2 in any way causes human health problems," Rohrabacher said. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/put-a-plastic-bag-over-your-head-grayson-tells-climate-change-skeptic/article/2591074
Carbon Dioxide And Global Warming - How Do We Know? https://youtu.be/qADD1Y886rI

>>111747
>For those who claim high CO2 is beneficial, tie a plastic bag around your head and enjoy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Lethal dose or concentration (LD, LC):
LCLo (lowest published)
90,000 ppm (human, 5 min)[3]
US health exposure limits (NIOSH):
PEL (Permissible)
TWA 5000 ppm (9000 mg/m3)[2]
REL (Recommended)
TWA 5000 ppm (9000 mg/m3) ST 30,000 ppm (54,000 mg/m3)[2]
IDLH (Immediate danger)
40,000 ppm[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

Major constituents of dry air, by volume[7]
GasVolume(A)
NameFormulain ppmv(B)in %
NitrogenN2780,84078.084
OxygenO2209,46020.946
ArgonAr9,3400.9340
Carbon dioxideCO2400

  >>111747
>but muh 97%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Surprisingly it doesn't mean that they are wrong either. Science is not a Democracy, and the idea of individual opinion or popular consensus isn't really applicable to it. The major issue we are having is not about climate change itself, but about methodology in this area.

>>111751
The "debate" is over. It's been over for a decade now and the only people saying otherwise are those getting paid by coal/oil companies and christian groups who want the apocalypse. The actual data is now consistently following the worst-case predictive models.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/12/06/thanks-to-climate-change-the-weather-pattern-burning-up-california-and-freezing-the-east-may-thrive/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609642/the-year-climate-change-began-to-spin-out-of-control/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-temperature-rise-climate-change-end-century-science-a8095591.html

>>111752
>The "debate" is over.
>The actual data is now consistently following the worst-case predictive models.
>washingtonpost
>technologyreview
>independent.co.uk

If you support the U.S. financially,
by paying taxes, for example,
you are voting for global warming
directly, with your wallet.

>>111753

>no guys! global warming is fake jew lies! keep buying Russian oil to fund imperialism!

>>111357
>.Opchan is global warming real or fake?

probably yes, real. even if not, no reason to not work towards more efficient engines, power, etc.

>also check it out, al gore is chinese now
>wtf

bad face lift?

Google Bookchin.
>Unfazed, Bookchin went on in his next book to wrestle with an even larger problem. Crisis in Our Cities, published in 1965 (also under the Lewis Herber pseudonym), was mostly a study of urban ills. But in the closing chapter, he explained that “man’s increased burning of coal and oil is annually adding 600 million tons of carbon dioxide to the air. […] This blanket of carbon dioxide tends to raise the earth’s atmosphere by intercepting heat waves going from the earth into outer space.” Now, Bookchin wasn’t a climate scientist—his information source was a brief article in a scientific journal. But the consequences were clear: rising temperatures that would disrupt the climate: “Meteorologists believe that the immediate effect of increased heat leads to violent air circulation and increasingly destructive storms.” Bookchin took a daring leap to suggest that “theoretically, after several centuries of fossil-fuel combustion, the increased heat of the atmosphere could even melt the polar ice caps of the earth and lead to the inundation of the continents with sea water.”
https://blog.oup.com/2015/08/murray-bookchin-climate-change/

>>111992
I guess that must be it. I wonder if thats why he dropped out of the public sphere, he got bad plastic surgery and was too sissy to show his face in public anymore. Anyway a million lols at chinese Al Gore. Putins facelift turned him chinky too, but I figured that was a calculated move to make him look more like his population because Putin is a Karellian fennoswede from the far NE corner of the empire and looks out of place amongst the half-mongols of northwestern asia.

It is real and not 100% a bad thing.

The earth has, in the past, been MUCH hotter with MUCH higher CO2 levels. Like high enough CO2 levels that photorespiration isn't a thing (this is the kind of environment photosynthesis evolved in. Thus the fact that rubisco is also an oxygenase wasn't an issue and it wasn't until CO2 level dropped that C4 photosynthesis came into being...which that pathway has a really cool evolution that is beyond the bounds of this thread).

Right now, due to climate change, trees are growing faster and laying down stronger wood then they were pre-industrial revolution. They are also growing in greater densities overall and many species are expanding their ranges northward (not as quickly as you would think. The northward expansion is limited by the change in the length of days and some other factors).

Something people tend not to look at, as they assume atmospheric CO2 is a bad thing due to the current rhetoric, is how painfully low the CO2 levels were just before the industrial revolution and the fact that they were still falling at the time. C3 plants (all trees and most other herbaceous species) had locked so much CO2 in the ground that they were basically starving. Nearly 35-40% of all PS gains were lost to photorespiration as the CO2 concentration was simply not high enough and it was getting worse.

Thanks to climate change we can grow industrialized crops and literally feed the world. Lets be honest here. No one in the world starves because there isn't enough food. They starve because someone somewhere decided that they should.
If we reversed the change and dropped CO2 back to pre-industrial levels A LOT of people would die. We simply wouldn't be able to grow crops at the same level. It would create a situation where people are starving because there really isn't enough food.

The real issues no one seems to want to address is how do we slow the rate of the change so ecosystems can adapt with less disruption and how do we leverage the increase in temperature and CO2 to our advantage?

>>112027
Forgot to add that photorespiration losses nowadays are 15-30% depending on the source you pull your info from.

If you want to try an at home experiment to see just how big of an issue photorespiration can be then:

Take 2 groups of plants (must be C3 plants, avoid monocots for this experiment), grow both indoors with a similar amount of light (confirm with light meter) and water.
1 group is the control and is kept in a separate room. The further away the better.
For the experimental group keep it close to a CO2 generator (like a an oil lamp that is always kept lit). The more CO2 generated the more dramatic the difference will be.

6 months later and I'm willing to bet that the experimental plants will be bigger by multiple orders of magnitude (baring disease). Now since you aren't in a labratory you, realistically, only dropped photorespiration by 1-5% but still had a dramatic effect. This is why professional greenhouses have CO2 generators. If your really think about it nearly all plant life on earth is being stunted by low CO2.

>>112027
One last thing. I re-read what I wrote and I think I may have made it sound like C3 PS is the original pathway. It isn't...ish. I don't want to lecture everyone on PS evolution but just know that C3 is technically a carbon-concentration pathway and that there are much simpler pathways utilized by early plants and still utilized by cyanobacteria.

  The benefit to plants of increasing CO2 is limited by nitrogen, the food becomes less nutritious, and is outweighed by the destructive effects of climate change, such as drought, increasing storms, ocean acidification, etc. So the idea of the wonderful benefits of increasing fossil fuel pollution is ridiculous corporate propaganda.

If you isolate a leaf in a laboratory and you increase the level of CO2, photosynthesis will increase, but the results scientists produce in labs are generally not what happens in the vastly more complex world outside; many other factors are involved in plant growth in untended forests, fields and other ecosystems. For example, nitrogen is often in short enough supply that it’s the primary controller of how much biomass is produced in an ecosystem. If nitrogen is limited, the benefit of the CO2 increase is limited. You can’t just look at CO2, because the overall context really matters.
Plants get some benefits early on from higher CO2, but that benefit starts to saturate after the gas reaches a certain level. The more CO2 you have, the less and less benefit you get. And while rising carbon dioxide might seem like a boon for agriculture, any potential positive effects cannot be considered in isolation, and will likely be outweighed by many drawbacks. Even with the benefit of CO2 fertilization, when you start getting up to 1 to 2 degrees of warming, you see negative effects. There are a lot of different pathways by which temperature can negatively affect crop yield: soil moisture deficit or heat directly damaging the plants and interfering with their reproductive process. Climate change's negative consequences—such as drought and heat stress—would likely overwhelm any direct benefits that rising CO2 might offer plant life.
Rising CO2’s effect on crops could also harm human health. When you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious. Food crops lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains also lose protein.
Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants? Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
By Annie Sneed on January 23, 2018 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
Climate Change 101 with Bill Nye | National Geographic https://youtu.be/EtW2rrLHs08

>>112032
Not trying to be a dick here but I think they are cherry picking a little.

While most people know that bean plants have a relationship with soil bacteria to fix nitrogen so do a lot of other plants. Alders, most betulaceae, most fabaceae, most of ulmaceae, etc. For them nitrogen really isn't a limiting factor since the bacteria that infects their roots (it isn't true symbiosis but that is another thread all together). For, trees at least, the ones that don't typically don't grow on nutrient poor sites until a nitrogen fixing pioneer species alters the soil chemistry. That isn't a hard fast rule (for instance I know table mountain pine and tulip poplar will grow, happy as clams, on pure sand and neither of them nitrogen fix).

Now they are talking mostly about food crops but none of the issues that they present aren't currently being tackled by laboratories making next generation GM crops. Also I'll be honest I don't know much about the food crop world; I'm going to school for trees.

My take away here is that it isn't all doom and gloom. More CO2 can be leveraged in our favor. Higher temps can be leveraged in our favor.
People will have to move. Lives will be destroyed. People will starve while others get fat. But at the end of the day it will rain somewhere and there will be life. We are advanced enough that we can manipulate the end result and we should.

Was looking around for some openly published works of modern sci-fi, and stumbled upon new post in Charles Stross blog. Written by some other guy, apparently a professional in "modern ecology" and author of some books. Well..

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/03/solarpunk-rising-or-how-to-tur.html

https://medium.com/solarpunks/solarpunk-a-reference-guide-8bcf18871965

Right now I'm reviewing the article and some more article connected to that one. While I preserve my usual calm composure like any normal human does, I can not ignore that some muscles deep inside me twitch in a mix of disgust and amusement. Ants fucking with each other in an ant hill, that's what I see. There words in here that I do not recognize, like "urban forestry crowd" and "enviros" which to me seem to be some sort of cartel things (which I never interacted with and hope I'm never going to), and most likely they are the cause of these contractions.

I imagine, these people are doing business. They probably think they are going to organize some sort of business that will solve their (supposedly) environmental problems for them. They, apparently, think it is the bureaucracy that is keeping them from fixing this planet in some observable amount of time. Solutions and aesthetics. Positive and happy future. People are talking about soil and how it could be made to absorb their precious carbon as if there's nothing and no one is living on that soil. Talking about solar panels as if they've been spawning out of thin air recently.

Solar? Solar what? What the actual fuck is that, I ask myself. How you are going to do your "environmentalism" when every odd year you imagine a new brilliant idea and try to organize another "environmentalist" club with your own aesthetics and your own business models. How is it going to save anyone if the meaning for your "business" is just going to be a redistribution of money from one pockets to others all over again. Everybody should be involved in protecting the environment, aren't they? No, that's not what you are hearing right now exactly - when I say "everyone", I do not mean that all corporations and conglomerates with money and resources this guy was listing above. I mean that every person is responsible, it should be an altogether separate civic duty to protect the environment you are residing in.

And that is obviously a government thing, a thing for the masses, and these people hate government and bureaucracy. Well, I'm going to tell you what is worse to the environment than government regulation - you. You and your own personal bureaucracy, which is hundred times more hopeless, because of your own ignorance, your elitism, your cynically wishful thinking. It literally means nothing if you call that "punk" or "revolution" or whatever similar. And if your government environmental policies are failing, it doesn't mean you need to make politics out of them, cannibalise them, or privatize them, or split it in many small private feuds living off their legacy. You need to fix them, simple as that.

>>112055
>gazprom shill gets triggered by solar panels

"We just don't know why tropical diseases are spreading to cold climates" says CDC.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/health/ticks-mosquitoes-diseases.html
>The number of people getting diseases transmitted by mosquito, tick and flea bites has more than tripled in the United States in recent years, federal health officials reported on Tuesday. Since 2004, at least nine such diseases have been discovered or newly introduced here.

>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did not suggest that Americans drop plans for softball games or hammock snoozes. But officials emphasized that it’s increasingly important for everyone — especially children — to be protected from outdoor pests with bug repellent.

>New tickborne diseases like Heartland virus are showing up in the continental United States, even as cases of Lyme disease and other established infections are growing. On island territories like Puerto Rico, the threat is mosquitoes carrying viruses like dengue and Zika.

>Warmer weather is an important cause of the surge, according to the lead author of a study published in the C.D.C.’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

>But the author, Dr. Lyle R. Petersen, the agency’s director of vector-borne diseases, declined to link the increase to the politically fraught issue of climate change, and the report does not mention climate change or global warming. Many other factors are at work, he emphasized, including increased jet travel and a lack of vaccines.

>“The numbers on some of these diseases have gone to astronomical levels,” Dr. Petersen added.

https://www.popsci.com/cfc-ozone-emission#page-4

>Based on an analysis of CFC-11’s interactions with other gases, the researchers believe the source is in eastern Asia—but that’s as narrow as the search beacon can go. Strahan hopes the new results might persuade NASA to conduct an aircraft mission that flies over the region, “because we can go and measure the stuff in the atmosphere and see if there are higher levels [of CFC-11].”

Aside from he actual topic, this article comes conveniently after start of China-US trade negotiations and of course adds to their idiotically straight force approach by US side ("surrender to our demands or else").

>That’s not to say there’s a country out there that’s going out of its way to flout the Montreal Protocol. According to Zaelke, the treaty has always worked with a “get well” approach: if a country is non-compliant, then the treaty’s leaders work aggressively with that state’s leaders to return compliance. If a country cannot or refuses to return to compliance, harsh trade sanctions are the next step. But those punitive measures have never been necessary before.

>new results might persuade NASA to conduct an aircraft mission that flies over the region

Implied intervention of sovereign airspace without any hint of cooperation. Naturally.

But then I remembered something else - what Montreal protocol really is. There's a lot of interesting topics, but it is interesting that there's literally no science whatsoever involved in the project itself since the beginning of the agreement. No progress is made. No results are announced. If you think the rest of "ecological" community is off much better, it is probably an illusion, supported by massive amount of repetitive publications.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/thirty-years-after-the-montreal-protocol-solving-the-ozone-problem-remains-elusive
>AUGUST 14, 2017
>Despite a ban on chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons, the ozone hole over Antarctica remains nearly as large as it did when the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987. Scientists now warn of new threats to the ozone layer, including widespread use of ozone-eating chemicals not covered by the treaty.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/new-measurement-confirms-the-ozone-is-coming-back/
>1/5/2018
>But determining whether the protocol is having the desired effect on the ozone layer has been challenging. Ozone is naturally generated in the stratosphere at a very slow rate, and the amount of destruction that takes place over the Antarctic varies from year to year. Hints of a recovery have often been followed by years in which ozone levels drop again. Recovery has been so slow, in fact, that it's possible to find people who claim the whole thing was a scam—and even a conspiracy designed to test whether it was possible to create a similar agreement for greenhouse gases.

>2017
>somebody remembers that Montreal protocol hits 30
>results should be demonstrated
>results are demonstrated, reluctantly so
>results are immediately thrown into a political tug-of-war

Cult classic of environmentalist movement.

>>112123
>no guys! global warming is fake jew lies! keep buying Russian oil to fund imperialism!

Siberia literally exploding as permafrost melts and releases methane.
http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/warnings-of-new-arctic-explosions-at-some-700-plus-sites-in-yamal-due-to-thawing-permafrost/
>Startling details have emerged of last week's methane gas blowout on an Arctic riverbank: a sudden and deafening bang from a large explosion of the ground near a reindeer encampment, fire shooting into the sky and raging for several minutes from the eruption, huge chunks of charred permafrost blown out of the ground, and a deep, eerie crater forming, some 50 metres deep which immediately filled with water.

>Reindeer and dogs fled in fright. Sand and grass was blackened by the intense heat of the eruption which was described as 'a flame of fire and then a rising pillar of smoke'.

>Scientists rushed to the scene on the Yamal Peninsula to examine the site in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, amid expert warnings that many can be expected as a warming climate leads to thawing permafrost and the release of potent methane gas which has lain frozen under the surface for thousands of years.

>The ground is 'swelling' at more than 700 sites on Yamal - known to locals as 'the end of the world' - have been identified as potential explosion sites, but these are seen as the tip of an iceberg.

>Many are hillocks or knolls, some are pingos.

http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/crater-formed-by-exploding-pingo-in-arctic-erupts-a-second-time-from-methane-emissions/

>A new theory also surmises that human exploitation of natural gas resources on the Yamal peninsula has led to the forming of toxic pockets which then explode, forming funnels or craters.

>The phenomenon of dramatically exploding pingos in Siberia’s polar regions has come to light only in recent years.

>It is being actively examined by scientists because of deep concerns over the safety of natural gas industrial installations including pipelines, as well as residential areas, for example on Yamal peninsula.

>A series of crater lakes - some tiny, others large and deep - have been caused by what has been seen as thawing permafrost leading to methane gathering under pingos - and then exploding.

https://www.sciencealert.com/siberian-doorway-to-the-underworld-so-huge-millennia-old-forests-and-carcasses-climate-change

>It's no secret that Siberia's permafrost is on thin ice. Conditions are varying so much that huge holes are appearing out of nowhere, and, in some places, tundra is quite literally bubbling underneath people's feet.

>But one of the biggest craters in the region, known by the local Yakutian people as the 'doorway to the underworld', is growing so rapidly that it's uncovering long-buried forests, carcasses, and up to 200,000 years of historical climate records.

>Known as the Batagaika crater, it's what's officially called a 'megaslump' or 'thermokarst'.

>Many of these megaslumps have been appearing across Siberia in recent years, but researchers think Batagaika could be something of an anomaly in the region, located around 660 km (410 miles) north-east of the region's capital city of Yakutsk.

>Not only is the crater already the largest of its kind, almost 1 km (0.6 miles) long and 86 metres (282 feet) deep, but it's getting bigger all the time.

>Research presented in 2016 by Frank Günther from the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany revealed that the head wall of the crater has grown by an average of 10 metres (33 feet) per year over the past decade of observations.

>And in warmer years, the growth has been up to 30 metres (98 feet) per year.

>The team also suspects that the side wall of the crater will reach a neighbouring valley in the coming months as temperatures heat up in the Northern Hemisphere, which could lead to even more land collapse.

>"On average over many years, we have seen that there's not so much acceleration or deceleration of these rates, it's continuously growing," Günther told Melissa Hogenboom from the BBC.

  >>112124
>global warming is truth!
>if you are developing your industry, please pay us more money
>so we can continue to export our pollution to your countries without any repercussions

>>112152
https://www.sciencealert.com/siberian-doorway-to-the-underworld-so-huge-millennia-old-forests-and-carcasses-climate-change

>While most of the planet went through periods of cooling and warming over the past 200,000 years, the climate history of Siberia is vastly unknown.

>But according to Murton, the last time Siberia saw this kind of slumping occur was around 10,000 years ago, as Earth transitioned out of its last Ice Age.

>And today greenhouse gas levels in our atmosphere are much higher than they were back then - we've exceeded 400 parts per million CO2, compared to 280 parts per million when the last Ice Age ended.

So basically scientists say they know nothing of Siberia climate, so it is perfectly safe to say anything.

>"And continuous growth means that the crater gets deeper and deeper every year."

>That's not great news for climate change. The crater formation first started after a large chunk of forest was cleared nearby in the 1960s.

>Because the ground was no longer shaded in the warm, summer months, it heated up more rapidly than it had in the past, eventually causing the permafrost to melt and the ground to collapse.

But let's ignore that the crater creation and further history is not related to global warming and is actually caused by deforestation HALF CENTURY earlier. The climatology sheepies won't notice the difference. They will gladly believe the Russians are responsible for global warming and ask to pay contributions.

"Global warming" is still as fake as it always has been

ITT: Everything I don't like is a conspiracy.

Seriously, the scientific community is responsible for all of the advance technology in our daily lives, from power generation to point-of-sale software. If they're lying to us, we're fucked anyway.